“Hey… it’s better than a kick in the head.”

posted on August 11th, 2010 by Jennifer Coalson-Perez

On August 24, 2008, Correctional Officer Jorge Garcia was working a shift in a rover position assisting officers wherever needed for the San Joaquin County Jail.  Suddenly, he received a radio transmission from a partner requesting assistance in Unit 4, a tense and dangerous unit reserved for discipline problems.  As he rushed to Unit 4, Officer Garcia saw that his partner’s radio indicated “Man Down.” Then the radio went dead. 

Garcia rushed to the scene and found two officers struggling with an inmate.  The inmate had already attempted to tackle an officer and was resisting with officers on the ground. The inmate attempted to bite one of Garcia’s fellow officers on the arm. Garcia deployed a single, swift kick to the inmate’s head preventing the bite.

Garcia was terminated for excessive use of force and dishonesty during the investigation. The department did not believe Garcia’s account that the inmate was attempting to bite the other officer.

In its rush to condemn Officer Garcia for kicking an inmate in the head, the Department made several missteps.  The department failed to provide a full Skelly packet, a serious breach of Officer Garcia’s POBR rights.  The Department did two reenactments of the incident but only provided one set of photos.

 The two reenactments showed radically different scenarios. When Mr. Lauro Paredes from Goyette & Associates, Inc. cross-examined the Department’s witnesses, they admitted that there had been two different reenactments, neither of which Garcia participated in. The Department should have been upfront in providing all of the photos from both reenactments so that Garcia could fully prepare his defense and the arbitrator sustained a finding against the Department for this violation.

On behalf of Officer Garcia, special use of force expert Ray Arquilla testified that Garcia’s actions were justified.  He explained that an inmate bite could be deadly due to the high rate of diseases in the inmate population.  The Department’s own witnesses conceded that inmate bites were frequent.  One of their witnesses admitted that he had been bitten on a previous occasion and described, on cross-examination by Mr. Paredes, the extent of the health precautions the Department had him undertake.

Following the hearing, the arbitrator found that Garcia was honest during the investigation and that the Department had violated its Skelly responsibilities. The Arbitrator ordered Garcia reinstated with full seniority and significant backpay. Before he could pull on his boots and get back to work, however, Officer Garcia found out that his ordeal was not over yet.

The Department refused to honor the arbitrator’s decision.  This refusal came in spite of the Association’s MOU, which clearly called for binding arbitration.  The Department, unwilling to concede that they had overreacted in Officer Garcia’s case, filed a Writ to overturn the arbitrator’s decision in San Joaquin County Court.

 Mr. Paredes and the team at Goyette & Associates defended against the Writ, arguing that the arbitrator had made a well-reasoned decision based upon facts in the record. In a lengthy decision, the Superior Court held that the County must honor the arbitrator’s decision.  Garcia has finally been able to return to work at the Department after more than a year’s absence.

Writ of Mandate GRANTED for Susanville POA

posted on August 6th, 2010 by Jennifer Coalson-Perez

The Lassen County Superior Court has granted a Petition for Writ of Mandate on behalf of the Susanville Police Officers Association commanding the City of Susanville to comply with the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and SPOA, and to take all remedial actions necessary to correct the actions taken in breach of the MOU.

Attorney John McCaslin filed the Petition on behalf of SPOA after the City adopted a resolution stating that officers hired after passage of the resolution would be subject to terms and conditions that conflicted with the terms of the MOU. Among the specific provisions the City attempted to adopt was the imposition of a two-tiered retirement system on new officers that reduced the City’s contribution to PERS from 3% to 2% at 50, and required officers to contribute 2% of the officers’ gross salary to health insurance premiums.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the Court initially issued a tentative ruling that denied the Petition and adopted the City’s arguments in opposition to the petition. After oral argument by Mr. McCaslin emphasizing that there was no legal basis for the City’s position, the court took the matter under submission, and ultimately reversed the tentative ruling and issued the Writ of Mandate to the City.

This is good result from a court that wanted to rule in favor of the City of Susanville, but which, in the end, followed the law and reached the correct conclusion. Thanks to Mike Lyon, Labor Representative at UPEC, for his hard work and assistance throughout this case.

G&A Obtains Class Certification for Parity Pay Case

posted on July 8th, 2010 by Jennifer Coalson-Perez

On Friday July 2, 2010 the Sacramento County Superior Court granted Goyette & Associates’ motion for class certification in the parity pay lawsuit for the California Correctional Supervisors Organization (CCSO) against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the California Department of Personnel Administration (DPA).  Under the difficult multi-part ‘test’ to certify a class action pursuant to state law (CA CCP section 382), the Court found that G&A had established all the required elements to show that named Plaintiffs CCSO and Lieutenant Chris Gold adequately represented all ‘similarly situated’ CDCR Sergeants and Lieutenants who are CCSO members under a certified class.  Based on the factual and legal arguments made by G&A Attorneys Gary Goyette and Francesca Gianuario, the Court certified the class and rejected CDCR/DPA’s arguments that the suit should not proceed as a class action, but should be limited to a Petition for Writ of Mandate.  The lawsuit now proceeds as a certified class action for CCSO’s effort to obtain retroactive pay for a year and a half period in which CDCR provided retroactive pay to the rank-and-file Correctional Officers, but refused to provide the same or any similar pay or benefits to the Sergeants and Lieutenants.  The Court’s decision to grant the motion and certify the class reflects the detailed hard work and experience of G&A’s civil litigation attorneys dealing with class actions.

How to Pick the Perfect Successor Trustee

posted on July 1st, 2010 by Jennifer Coalson-Perez

From the Desk of Rafael Ruano, Managing Associate, Estate & Business Planning Division:

How to Pick the Perfect Successor Trustee

 Selecting the person to take care of distributing your assets when you (and your spouse if you are married) are gone is one of the most important decisions to be made when setting up an estate plan. If you set up a living trust, the “successor trustee” is the person that will take care of things after you are gone. They will look to the trust to tell them who should receive the assets and when. The successor trustee will also have to handle administrative paperwork with banks, insurance companies, government agencies and real estate agents. Most importantly, the successor trustee will usually be asked to use their discretion in dividing up personal belongings, in making partial distributions to children, and in dealing with the kids, other beneficiaries, and the children’s guardian(s).

 In short, the successor trustee’s job is vital to fully carry out and implement your plan. For most, picking someone to take on the responsibility down the road can be difficult. The most important factor to consider when naming a successor trustee is finding someone that you, and your spouse, can trust without reservation. This person will have tremendous responsibility, but will have a great deal of power and control as well. If you have reservations, you should definitely expand your search and try to find someone else.

 My client’s tend to choose family with adult children and close relatives being the most popular choices. An important consideration when selecting among family members is the dynamics between the children (and other beneficiaries) and the successor trustee. If you are considering naming a sibling but he/she has strained relations with your kids, or simply lives elsewhere and rarely interacts with your children, then you need to take that into consideration.

 Close friends are also commonly selected when children are too young and other factors make other family members poor choices. One factor to take into account when naming a non-family member as successor trustee is what, exactly, you are asking this individual to do for you. If you have young kids and your trust states that they are not to received their shares until they are 35 years old, then you need to realize that you are potentially asking your friend to oversee the investment and ongoing management and distributions of the trust for decades (should something happen to you and your spouse in the near future). While your friend may be willing to do this, the issue should be considered before naming them.

 The issues raised above are only a few of the many that come up when making this decision. Although choosing a successor trustee is  tough decision it should not keep you from setting up a plan, as the uncertainty  will certainly make things even more difficult for your children and family.

 To discuss this issue and others that come up in a comprehensive estate plan, please contact me at (888) 993-1600 or rruano@goyette-assoc.com

I Saw G&A in the May PORAC News…

posted on June 25th, 2010 by Jennifer Coalson-Perez

Hi Jennifer,

 My Name is David Barajas and yesterday (06-24-10) I met with Lauro A. Paredes for the first time regarding my case in Stanislaus County Probation. I just wanted to inform Goyette & Associates that I was very confident with representation and professionalism that your firm conducting themselves during a very stress full time in my career.

 When I met Mr. Paredes on 6-24-10 in the interview room I was making a comment to him that I had just read a article from PORAC News Vol. 46 No.5 May 2010 about an employee in Contra Costa County Probation and how he was vindicated from his actions. Mr. Paredes informed me that he represented that officer. The story in the article was great and shows that with the right experts, officers can be exonerated. 

I also wanted you to pass on to Attorney Dan Thompson and Labor Representative Paul Konsdorf for working as a team and giving me a positive outlook and getting me through a most stress full ordeal in my 15 year career. Both Mr. Konsdorf and Mr. Thompson assisted me with my legal rights along with moral support. Mr. Konsdorf was the first person I contacted and he always returned my calls promptly and I felt very confident from day one.

 Again Thank You! To Goyette & Associates.

CCSO Vice President Video Testimonial: His Criminal Trial Win

posted on June 24th, 2010 by Jennifer Coalson-Perez

Paul Goyette, Managing Partner at G&A recently represented Chris Gold: CCSO’s Vice President in a criminal trial that would have cost him his career, reputation and entire way of life. To watch the video on YouTube, click Criminal Trial Client Testimonial

GOVERNMENT AS USUAL IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY

posted on June 16th, 2010 by Jennifer Coalson-Perez

Sacramento County has given us yet another piece of evidence that certain elected officials and managers of California government entities have devolved into nothing more than their own personal existence justification system. Over the last three years we have repeatedly seen government managers go to extraordinary lengths to protect themselves and their friends.

On Wednesday, May 26, 2010, the Sacramento Bee reported that during 2009, the number of Sacramento County’s highest paid employees significantly increased. Yes, that’s right, increased. During the worst fiscal crisis in Sacramento County’s history the number of Sacramento County employees making over $100,000.00 a year in base salary increased. Remember, for the last three years Sacramento County has had budget deficients over $100 million.

Sacramento County officials were quick to defend themselves by saying that the salary increase were the result of collective bargaining agreements they have no control over. However, what is clear is Sacramento County leaders and most government officials do not want that control. They do not want to make hard decisions that are necessary in today’s economic climate. Government officials are quick to slap a band-aid on the severed artery by furloughing employees, laying off some of the lowest paid employees and attempting to freeze wage or benefit increases. Government leaders hold on from one pay period to the next, use smoke and mirrors to pay their bills, all while fending off difficult questions as to why they are making the decisions they make. Here is what drives them: Sacramento County officials and most government leaders first and foremost want to protect themselves and their closest allies and friends. In Sacramento County’s case that starts

with supervisors and goes to the County Administrator’s office. They refuse to recognize the obvious solution which is significant parts of their governmental empires have to permanently go away. A massive restructuring of California government must occur so that these government entities can provide the basic, fundamental, and indispensable services they are required to provide.

I for one want more government workers on the streets doing the actual work and less bureaucrats thinking of ways to justify their existence. Some form of real leadership needs to arise arises in California state and local governments for it’s fiscal problems to be fixed.

BUSINESS SUCCESS PROGRAM Super Affordable Small Business Legal Plans

posted on June 11th, 2010 by Jennifer Coalson-Perez

It’s possible that your employees have integrity and would never take advantage of you, that your vendors and subcontractors are all above board and your documents, processes and insurances are all in compliance without any loopholes. But it is also possible that an employee might become disgruntled, one of your sub’s is using an illegal workforce, or that there is something missing from your handbook that doesn’t address the very latest regulation or rule.

  • What if a current or former employee files a complaint of harassment and discrimination against you? Do you know how or have time to respond? These claims cost California business like yours millions and can take years to resolve.
  • Are you providing your employees legally required insurances such as worker’s compensation and medical under new Federal laws? Penalties for non-compliance are enormous.
  • Are you properly calculating your employees wages and overtime compensation? Many businesses across the country are hit for incredible amounts of back wages, years after the violation.
  • Do you use subcontractors for any of your business affairs? Do you know what your liabilities are if your subcontracted vendors aren’t compliant? Do you have the time to research everyone of your vendors or subcontractors?
  • What if a customer claims he was injured at your workplace or as a result of your product? Do you have the right kind and sufficent insurance in place? If not, it could mean your business.
  •  What if you have a pregnant employee who wants paid time off of work? Are you required to grant it? Claims by sick, injured or otherwise disabled employees can be the difference between profit and bankruptcy.

 Do you need day to day advice on hiring or termination documents, your employee handbook, how to properly document behavior or discipline an employee? Do you have legal questions but don’t call a lawyer simply because you will billed too much money for a small amount of work? How much do you think it will cost to NOT be legally sound…

If you haven’t had your business legally audited it could be in jeopardy, but what small business has the resources for that type of legal advice? The Business Success Program is the solution for you. It is hard enough doing business in California. Give yourself an advantage. Feel free to call  anytime to discuss the Business Success Program in more detail or to read the basic overview, click Business Success Program

Estate & Business Planning Newsletter

posted on June 4th, 2010 by Jennifer Coalson-Perez

Volume 1, Issue 1

Welcome to the Inaugural Goyette & Associates, Inc.  Estate & Business Planning  E- Newsletter 

  • For CSFA Members – Unveiling of CSFATRUST.COM
  • What’s News in Estate Planning?

NY Times Article:  Stresses the Importance of Having Paper Trail of Important Estate Documents

To read the articles or to download a copy of the Newsletter click here Estate Planning Newsletter Vol I

Right to Meet and Confer Upheld for Chico POA

posted on June 4th, 2010 by Jennifer Coalson-Perez

After a 13 month battle in Superior Court,  G&A attorney John McCaslin’s and labor representative Steve Allen’s efforts prevailed against the City of Chico on behalf of our Client, Chico Police Officer’s Association. Chico POA President, Terry Moore expressed his gratitude to G&A – especially to John and Steve in a much appreciated letter, to Paul Goyette.

“For a variety of reasons, this was not an easy case. But at every juncture, I found Steve and John to be tremendously helpful and openly accessible… I found [them] very skilled at what they do. They represent you, your staff and your offices in a very positive light.

I think it’s important to let you know about the great job they did. And personally, I love winning. They both helped make that happen.

With Goyette and Associates on our team, I look forward to the next battle.

Sincerely,

Terry Moore”

To Read Terry Moore’s letter in its entirety, click  Chico POA Letter from Terry Moore 5-20-10